Honestly hand on heart I had difficulty following it. It was read partly by him and some woman who I assumed might have been his wife and I kept falling asleep cos I would lay in bed and listen.

Someone of a greater intellect than me would get more out of it than that's for sure so on that regard I would obviously recommend it on that part just for the fact you can see a different opinion from one of the world's most prominent atheist speakers. If you got it as a book I'm sure you would negate all the problems I had (got a low attention span so I can't read books :laugh:)

Thanks Kyle.

You certainly know the Bible better than I do Kyle.

I accept that the Bible is full of inconsistencies and shocking passages, and I accept - or rather suspect - that because it is Man who 'writ down God's word' , and Man, who in the form of successive organized religions, has selectively edited the text, re-wrote great tracts of it, and destroyed other huge parts of the original vital testimony, that to blindly and literally believe the Bible in its entirety, is certainly folly.

I'm not a conventional Christian in the accepted sense of the word - I am not devout, don't go to Church, and I live as normal a life as I can.

Two of my three children do not even share my belief that Christ is the Messiah or therefore, that God exists in some form, because I have not imposed my beliefs upon them. I encouraged them to read philosophy and explore various belief systems and religions, for the same reason I impressed upon them the importance of a sound education, and they listened to me but then 'made up their own minds' about God and religion. Thank God (oops) that they also listened to me about education because all three have graduated from uni.

However, in defence of the Bible, or what remains of the original text after Man's chicanery, I would point out just a few of the increasingly more frequent examples where new archaeological discoveries are proving biblical assertions which the scientific world previously dismissed:

1. King David Inscription

Sceptics and Atheists always maintained that King David (of 'Once In Royal David's City' fame) never existed and was 'pure myth'. Until, that is July 1993 when a 'stele' fragment of basalt was unearthed by archaeologists which bore an inscription mentioning 'The House of David'. Two other discoveries cemented King David as a real historical figure with inscriptions mentioning; 'David' 'King of Israel' . These finds have been dated to the 8th or 9th Century BC and were the first non-biblical reference to a biblical figure.

2. The Baruch Bulla

A 'Bulla' is a hardened clay seal impression and hundreds have been discovered in the past 100 years or so, but one stand out bulla which appeared in 1970 contained the name and stamp of the biblical prophet Jeremiah's scribe.

Another bears the inscription "Belonging to Seraiah (ben) Neriah." and Seriah was the "chief chamberlain" in the court of King Zedekiah (Jer 51:59).

3.The Pontius Pilate Inscription

In 1961, a dedicatory stone bearing the an inscription: Tiberieum/[Pon]tius Pilatus/[Praef]ectus Iuda[eae], "Tiberius [the Roman emperor of the period]/Pontius Pilate/Prefect of Judea." was discovered during excavations in Caesarea Maritima.

Pilate was the governor of Roman Judea, under whose governance Jesus of Nazareth was crucified.

4. Ossuary of Caiaphas

In the Bible, Caiaphas is the High Priest of The Sanhedrin whom Jesus was brought before for questioning, and in 1990 a tomb was discovered in Jerusalem which contained his ossuary.

(An ossuary is a stone box containing the bones of the deceased.)

5. The Pool at Shiloh

In 2004, the pool where Jesus performed the miracle of restoring a blind man's sight (Gospel of St John) was discovered by archaeologists digging south of the Temple Mount.

As stated, these are but a few of numerous archaeological discoveries which prove the Bible as so much more than a 'fictional book' (as one on here ridiculously claims.) Among these other discoveries are what is generally agreed to be the store cities 'Ramesess' and 'Pithon' of the Biblical Exodus - Store Cities which were hitherto denounced as myth by mainstream academics.

Personally, I absorb the parts of the Bible which I am logically persuaded by, and treat the rest with a degree of scepticism knowing that the hand of Man has been involved.

I am open minded but yet, cannot forget how I was taught 'Science' and 'History' by 'academics' in Grammar School. Part of these teachings dealt with how the coelacanth was as extinct as the Do-Do, and that the native American Indians were savages.

I have my reasons for believing in Jesus as the Christ and therefore God, and it has nothing to do with blind acceptance of 'fairy tales', or 'mumbo jumbo', but entirely to do with years of extensive research and study, cold analysis of the results of that research, and logical interpretation of the evidence and facts concerning Christ.

I believe what I believe, but will not, however, ever denigrate or lambaste any other person for not believing what I do, or for even believing in nothing at all.

To close, my post on the 10 Commandments was in specific answer to Livia's perfectly legitimate and civil query in her post, and was supplemental to my 'Food For Thought' post which prompted Livia's enquiry. It was not a blind acceptance of all biblical text as being 'literally true'.

I am grateful Kyle that you are approaching this complex subject with fairness even though you hold opposing views, because through civil, intelligent debate, we may both learn something.

I understand this is a difficult topic to discuss because at the end of the day I have decided to read the bible only to pick it apart and absorb the (in my opinion) mythology surrounding it.

Personally I will always have difficulty understanding how some parts of the bible can be readily accepted and others thrown away as conjecture when it's all there in a book which the writers have given no indication of which bits are to be taken literally and which have just come from imagination. It's just so ambiguous I can completely understand how there are so many denominations which take whatever meaning they want from the scriptures and use it to further their agenda.

Some like Joseph Smith just completely add extra books and scripture on top of that and before we know it we have huge pockets of America that follow the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

To me, and certainly from what I've seen so far this is just completely jumbled up bad code which means hee haw to me and doesn't give me a clear understanding of what on earth I should be doing. That doesn't sound to me like a Very clever God but that's just my impressions so far.

Kirk and Kyle you both put forward such great communication for us to consider, thank you both. You have put forward the two sides of the coin so where does it leave us?

Kirk I appreciate you very much but my views tend to be with Kyle, it is just great that we can all chat together and appreciate each others point of view. You have both gone to great levels to present your debate.

I acknowledge Kirk certainly knows his sh*t. (Pardon my French :hehe:) We have also had very interesting discussions privately too which is absolutely fascinating.

And to clarify, I mean he knows his stuff, not that it i think it's excrement or anything like that.

I accept that the Bible is full of inconsistencies and shocking passages, and I accept - or rather suspect - that because it is Man who 'writ down God's word' , and Man, who in the form of successive organized religions, has selectively edited the text, re-wrote great tracts of it, and destroyed other huge parts of the original vital testimony, that to blindly and literally believe the Bible in its entirety, is certainly folly.

I'm not a conventional Christian in the accepted sense of the word - I am not devout, don't go to Church, and I live as normal a life as I can.

Two of my three children do not even share my belief that Christ is the Messiah or therefore, that God exists in some form, because I have not imposed my beliefs upon them. I encouraged them to read philosophy and explore various belief systems and religions, for the same reason I impressed upon them the importance of a sound education, and they listened to me but then 'made up their own minds' about God and religion. Thank God (oops) that they also listened to me about education because all three have graduated from uni.

However, in defence of the Bible, or what remains of the original text after Man's chicanery, I would point out just a few of the increasingly more frequent examples where new archaeological discoveries are proving biblical assertions which the scientific world previously dismissed:
.................................................. ......................................


To me Kirk, this is the trouble, much has been taken out especially re the more pagan side. It is said that reincarnation and karma are two of the follies, had they been left in man would possible have a different view in the Western side of life. Look how the so called witches were treated at the will of others, many people didnt even have any craft to talk about.

I believe that they (reincarnation and karma) are part and parcel of many cultures therefore giving access if so desired, to a greater understanding of the whys and wherefores. Naturally I may be totally wrong but this is what I feel at the moment.

Well done to you and your youngsters you must be very proud.

I am very interested in the archaeological findings, they do give us an insight to a past life.

Hi Kirk and Kyle, have you ever studied the life of Jesus through the Essenes?

"At the time when the Master Jesus was present among his disciples, he had already named the Master St. John as the leader of and the person responsible for this inner and secret School. It is the Master St. John who was put in charge of teaching in this School and of ensuring that the exercises were done correctly.
Thereafter, the Master St. John continued his task, even after Jesus' departure. He remained faithful and opened inner Schools in most European countries. These Schools continued to exist in secret and have propagated themselves right up to our own time, keeping Christ's teaching pure, exactly as the Essenes had kept pure Moses' secret and authentic teaching. Today, parts of this Teaching and of its techniques are being extended to the outside world because a new time of harvesting and sowing has arrived."

This is interesting and this is how I see Jesus, I believe in him as a man but he studied at the Essenes. He had great mystical knowledge for it is a place of mysticism. I believe that he was crucified because the powers that be became wary of his knowledge and his teachings, they became afraid. He talks of the christ but to me the christ is within us all. His cry of "Lord why has though forsaken me" suggests that he had gone down to his lower level of thought but then he uplifted himself and put into play all his previous knowledge and faith.

Archaeology is putting forth great things of worth, many re the Egyptians and their way of life, the pyramids, why are they there? That which we find is truth but what was its purpose. Yes places existed we cannot deny it but is it proof? To me Jesus was a great man with a purpose in life. He tried to teach mankind how to survive for their own benefit, to think for themselves, to say the answers are within. x

An interesting thought Jesus supposedly travelled to Glastonbury the hymn "and did those feet on ancient grounds" was written in honour of this. It is upheld in Glastonbury today and there is an inscription to this effect.

The only thing I would query was the travel.....how did he travel, is there any proof of this factor?

"The Essenes recognized the equality of the sexes, and accorded to women, in the greatest secrecy, the place which was rightfully theirs. Thus, women were able to participate in all of the spiritual activities.
The Essenes studied an esoteric teaching on androgyny, which provided them with a perception of the soul beyond the dualistic conception of sex. The white-linen robe was a symbol of this vision of the soul's unity".

I love this bit as women through many of the ages have been thought to be inferiour to man, even now it is so in certain places and the mind of some men.

".............It is in this state of mind, with great lucidity and a sublime love, that she consecrated her child to God at the very moment he came into the world. In this way, she accomplished the ancient rite and the secular vow of the Nazarites. Jesus was born as an Essene, and the Virgin, from that moment, deployed her will so that he would receive the education and the transmission of the spiritual laws issued by the fraternity. This is how, at the age of twelve, he was able to astonish all the priests of the temple of Jerusalem . Nevertheless, she made sure that he was educated by a dissident and non-dogmatic branch of the fraternity. In fact, there were two Essene communities: one external and official, and the other more internal and quiet. One finds the same aspect in Christianity: on one side, there is the church of St. Peter , which takes care of the external side and which is very dogmatic and rigid; and, on another side, the church of St. John , which seeks, in liberty and love, to live Christ's teaching from the inside.

This will of the Virgin to remove Jesus from the external community was very difficult to live with because that community wanted to gain possession of the child for reasons that are very easy to understand. Finally, through negotiations, the Virgin succeeded in keeping the child with her and having him educated by the dissident group. She succeeded in this thanks to the help of the angels who were with her and who protected the Master Jesus. The Essenes were sensitive to the angels and were used to obeying them.

It is the Essenes who taught the Master Jesus to eat, to walk, to speak, to read, to write, to pray, and to unite himself with the One With No Name, with the Father and the Mother of the world.

The Virgin made sure that his education would be intensive because she wanted him to be almost an adult at the age of seven before leaving with the angels. But, in fact, at the age of seven, he met his inner being, his divine source, the people of God, his angel of light who made him experience the divine world in its pure manifestation and reality.

The Virgin supported her son all the time and she believed, for many years, that he was an angel come to the earth".
.................................................. ............................

Mother Mary was supposedly born into the Essenes and as such brought her son up as part of their teachings.

Do we believe in Angels, I have to admit that I do.........

"Archangel Gabriel

Gabriel is the Archangel connected to family, birth, and the mysteries of life within the soul and relations. He is found in the sacred texts of all religions. He is the Archangel who stood beside the Virgin Mary at the birth of Jesus.

He is connected to water in the Essene tradition:
- Water in nature: water from a source, water from a lake, water that gives life and quenches the thirst of Earth and man.
- Also, water in a more subtle aspect: a subtle water that runs between all beings through relations, exchanges and communication".

Now we seem to be getting somewhere :D it seems fitting that she would want some esoteric knowledge instilled in her child, not have his head rammed full of patriarchal fear laden text doesn't it?

So she in essence took her child out of 'assembly'.

I too believe in the theory of angels, due to the reproduction of imagery across the globe thousands of years before the birth of any prophet.

[QUOTE=Kyle;7321668]

"I understand this is a difficult topic to discuss because at the end of the day I have decided to read the bible only to pick it apart and absorb the (in my opinion) mythology surrounding it."

I've no problem here Kyle - in fact I welcome it, because if you're reading, you're informed, and don't spout irrelevant bollox like some, even if you're contesting my viewpoint.

"Personally I will always have difficulty understanding how some parts of the bible can be readily accepted and others thrown away as conjecture when it's all there in a book which the writers have given no indication of which bits are to be taken literally and which have just come from imagination. It's just so ambiguous I can completely understand how there are so many denominations which take whatever meaning they want from the scriptures and use it to further their agenda."

The Bible was written by many writers over a period thought to be a thousand years. During that time, various 'ruling bodies' have edited the original text to suit their own purpose. These range from the Roman's after Constantine's conversion to Christianity in 312 AD, to the latest alterations in the 2011 New International Version of the Bible (NIV), and then there may have been much text - the meaning of which has been 'lost in translation'.

I'm not too worried about any 'selective editing' though Kyle because I believe the 'essence' to be still basically intact, it's the text which has been removed and destroyed over the years which I'm pissed about - think what might have been there.

I don't even think there are many instances in the Bible which involve imagination - just attempts by relatively primitive man to convey in his own language real experiences which fell beyond the parameters of his knowledge and vocabulary.

"Some like Joseph Smith just completely add extra books and scripture on top of that and before we know it we have huge pockets of America that follow the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints."

With no offense intended to people of Mormon and Islamic persuasion, there is no independent corroboration of the 'divine' revelations which Joseph Smith - like the 'Prophet' Mohammed - claimed. We have only their word themselves that what happened actually happened.

Smith experienced his 'visions', when completely alone - first in a secluded wood in 1820 and later - again alone - when visited by an angel he called 'Moroni' in 1823.

Mohammed experienced a vision of the archangel Gabriel, who proclaimed him a prophet of God. whilst meditating in a cave outside of Mecca completely alone.

There is a lot more evidence which casts serious doubt as to the claims of both Smith, but especially Mohammed, but that's another story.

Suffice it to say that I examined these religions (among others) a long time ago and rejected them in favour of Jesus Christ for whom there is overwhelming evidence that he lived and died on the cross and very persuasive evidence from numerous contemporary sources that he resurrected. As incredible as it may seem to 'modern man' there is also what I regard as compelling forensic evidence to substantiate Christ's resurrection, but that also is another story.

"To me, and certainly from what I've seen so far this is just completely jumbled up bad code which means hee haw to me and doesn't give me a clear understanding of what on earth I should be doing. That doesn't sound to me like a Very clever God but that's just my impressions so far."

I'm being deadly sincere now Kyle; I can't blame you for being confused. I know from years of reading (worse now since the advent of the internet) that as soon as you read one 'authority' who makes claims as being 'Gospel' and feel swayed, you read another 'authority' who debunks the first authority and makes polar opposite claims as being 'Gospel'. It takes a hell of a lot of following up, cross referencing and digesting and analysing before you can reach any sort of conclusion which you feel satisfied by - if ever.

I'm not trying to 'convert' anyone and the subject is far too complex for me to comprehensively relate even my tiny knowledge for me to try to convince.

All that I am saying is that I am a normal, ordinary Yorkshire man born to working class parents of no religious persuasion, and I do not 'leap in' to anything without satisfying myself that it makes sense to do so. I experienced a 'catalyst' which convinced me that there was more to this (otherwise futile) existence than procreating and getting pissed, and I set off in search of answers.

Keep reading Kyle, you might surprise yourself and find some answers to questions you haven't even asked out loud.:wavey:

Someone should throw a word in for Polytheists. It's funny how the debate always leads back to the concept of one God. As this that's somehow less ridiculous than there being many Gods.

[QUOTE=kirklancaster;7321944]Over the years I've read huge chunks of it too, enough to make an informed opinion that it isn't for me.
I'm sure anyone schooled here has had enough stuffed down their throats at their 'institutions of learning' to get a grasp of Christian ideology too.

'The Bible was written by many writers over a period thought to be a thousand years.' which bible are you referring to here?

[QUOTE=Kizzy;7321969][QUOTE=kirklancaster;7321944]

Over the years I've read huge chunks of it too, enough to make an informed opinion that it isn't for me.

That's your prerogative. I've never stated otherwise.

I'm sure anyone schooled here has had enough stuffed down their throats at their 'institutions of learning' to get a grasp of Christian ideology too.

Then don't subscribe to this interchange of views between Kyle and myself. For myself, I attended schools with Religious Education and Assembly, but i never had anything 'stuffed down my throat' because I wasn't interested in it so didn't think about it, let alone believed in it at the time.

'The Bible was written by many writers over a period thought to be a thousand years.' which bible are you referring to here?

I'm referring to the Christian/Judeo Bible:

[U]Christianity Stack Exchange[/U]
We don't know exactly when the books of the Bible were written, but we can, through cross-referencing external sources, determine when the historical figures in the Bible lived. Either way, the common consensus is that the writing of the books of the Bible began some time after 1500 BC, and concluded prior to 100 AD. This would be a period of about 1600 years.

Biblica

The Bible was not written in one specific year or in a single location. The Bible is a collection of writings, and the earliest ones were set down nearly 3500 years ago.The New Testament was written during a much shorter period, i.e. during the last half of the first century AD.

Got Questions Kidz

The Bible was written over about 1,500 years from 1400 BC to AD 90.

Minster Book

When was the Bible written?

It was written over a period of some 1,500 years, from around 1450 B.C. (the time of Moses) to about 100 A.D. (following the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ).

Bible Bell

As to when "pen was put to paper," the oldest book (Job) was written c. 2150 BC. The youngest book (Revelation) was written c. 90 AD.
Thus, it took about 2200 years to write the 66 books of the Bible.

Thank you for your comments.

I agree InOne, why don't you 'start the ball rolling'? It's 'leading back to the concept of one God because the only people who are currently exchanging views are discussing that subject.

As a Monotheist, I cannot entertain the notion of polytheism, but I'll willing listen (so to speak) to your views.

I don't believe in any of it but I was just noting there's never long winded debates on the internet over Polytheism. It's always Christianity or Islam. I guess though that#s cos they shout the loudest.

I'm fascinated by your posts on this Jules. I'm familiar with some long-standing theories that Jesus was an Essene, but nothing which has had the wealth of detail in your posts. What is your source?

No problem InOne, though it may be because Polytheists are either thin on the ground, disinterested in airing their views, or both.

Possibly. But the harder Monotheists try they don't seem to get any closer to proving there's a God at all.

Yep - it all comes down to Faith in the end.

All that "rule of three" and "hearth and home" stuff isn't anything to do with real Paganism and everything to do with modern Wicca which as we know has been made up in bits and pieces over the last hundred years or so with bits borrowed from other more ancient religions, Celtic, Norse etc.. And no, there is no "bible" for Pagans because the religion was virtually wiped out by the Catholics about four hundred years ago. Same goes for Druidism. There are lots of books, lots of papers... but they're all safely tucked away in the Vatican. There is dark and light in everything, people are good and bad... don't imagine for a minute that people who think they're witches are all good and positive.

If you read the story of how the Ten Commandments came to be you wouldn't have to ask why I think there was disorder before then, but the laws were applicable to the Jews at that time.

Human beings can't exist without laws. It isn't laws that make people bad, it's their nature. As for laws being made just to manipulate the masses, that's a comment that could only come from someone living in a country where law and order is taken completely for granted.